HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-06713
v
~
1.1
-:s
'(
i ~
~
~
...,i
......1
"'"',
,
--.31
~I
~I
I
~.
!), Venue is properly laid in Cumberland County for at least
the (ollowing reasons:
il. The incidpnts itlL/!qed 1n this C()lllpJditlL occurred
in Cumberland County;
b. Material facts, Witnesses, and evidence arc
located in Cumberland County;
c, Defendant Lucke residei'" in Cumberland County.
6. The facts and occurrences hereinafter stated took place
on August I, 1998 at approximately 5:13 p,m, at the intersection
of State Route 2018 (Simpson Ferry Road) and 16'" Street in New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
7. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant was the
owner and operator of a 1989 Plymouth Voyager bearing
Pennsylvania registration #41959898305,
8. At the aforesaid date and time, the Plaintiff was
operating a 1989 Lincoln Continental and was travelling in a
westerly direction on State Route 2018 (Simpson Ferry Road) in
New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
9. At the aforesaid date and time, the Defendant was
operating the aforesaid Plymouth Voyager and was traveling in an
easterly direction on State Route 2018 (Simpson Ferry Road) in
New CUmberland, Cumberland County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
10. At the aforesaid date and time, Plaintiff lawfully
approached the intersection of State Route 2018 and 16th Street
and observed a solid green light permitting his lawful travel
through the intersection,
11. The trdffic :.;iqtldl fd. the iute'rEjection of Stdtc HoacJ
2018 and 16" Str"pt p"rmit:; trid I ic tr"v,,11 illq in an easterly
direction to lilwiully ma~e iI left turn onto 16" Street when
either iI green arrow pointinq left is illuminated or, when iI
solid green li{Jht is illuminated, after yielding to oncomming
traffic,
12. The traffic signal ~t the intersection of State Road
2018 and 16" Street is set such that whenever a green left-turn
arrow is illuminated to permit left turns by easterly traffic, a
solid red light is illuminated to stop westbound traffic,
13. The traffic signal at the intersection of State Road
2018 and 16'" Street is set such that whenever there is a solid
green light illuminated permitting travel westbound, the green
left-turn arrow for eastbound traffic is not illuminated.
14, When Plaintiff approached the intersection of State
Road 2018 and 16" Street on August I, 1998, he observed that the
solid green light permitting westbound traffic was illuminated.
15. When Defendant approached the intersection of State
Road 2018 and 16" Street on August I, 1998, the green left-turn
arrow was not illuminated.
16. There is a clearly visible, lawful sign at the
intersection facing westward to warn eastbound traffic to yield
to oncomming traffic, The sign reads: "Left turn yields on
green."
17. As Plaintiff proceeded lawfully through the
intersection of State Route 2018 and 16", the Defendant,
suddenly and without Wdlflillq, nlej(ff' 'J l.-i.l}o J,'f!-!l'llllj t!lrn (jltpetly
in front of Plaint iff's vebif'J..,
18. TIa.' J.lf.'fPllddfll. lId ll.(j tn yie'lei t.o o!li'uZrtlllillQ trdffic.
19, The Defendant iqnored the li,\,ful siqn to yield to
oncomming traffic,
20, The Defendant's Sllcldc'l1 left turn in front of the
Plaintiff's vehicle was hazardous, careless and reckless.
21. The Defendant's failure to yield to oncomming traffic
was unlawful.
22. The Defendant did not properly signal her left turn.
23. The Defendant's hazardous, careless, unlawful and
reckless operation of her vehicle caused a collision between the
Plaintiff's and Defendant's vehicles,
24. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the Defendant,
Plaintiff sustained damage to his vehicle in the amount of
$5,000.00 (Five Thousand Dollars) and suffered injuries to what
extent have yet to be determined.
25. The Defendant's negligence, carelessness, and
recklessness consisted of at least the following:
a) failing to have her motor vehicle under proper and
adequate control;
b) failing to yield to oncoming traffic;
c) failing to observe the plaintiff's vehiclelperson
on the highway;
d) fdilirlcl to oper~te Iler "Jotar vctliclc in accO[CfarlCe
with (!xistinq traffic condition,; and traffic
controls;
e) failing to keep ii reasotlable lookout for other
vehicles lawfully on the road;
f) failing to ta~:e due note of the point and position
of the Plaintiff's vehicle;
g) failing to take the last clear chance and avoid the
collision;
h) failing to properly signal her intention to execute
a 1350 left hand turn;
i) operating her vehicle without regard to the rights,
safety, and position of the Plaintiff;
j) otherwise operating her motor vehicle in a
negligent, careless, and reckless manner and in
violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and any applicable
ordinances;
k) failing to use that degree of care, skill, caution,
and foresight required under the circumstances
here in question (which further investigation and
discovery may disclose and as will be shown at the
trial of this case) .
26, The damages to the Plaintiff's vehicle were caused
solely and exclusively by the negligence and/or carelessness
andlor recklessness of the Defendant, and were in no way caused
by the Plaintiff,
Kyunq-Joo Tark,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cheryle Lucke,
NO, 98-
CIVIL TERM
v,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VERIFICATION
I, Kyung-Joo Tark, do hereby verify that the facts set forth
in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief, and I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
Cons, Stat. ~4904 (relating to unsworn falsifications).
~/,"i.iu
Kyung-Joo Tark'
DATE: 11/2)//.r
\
,
l:.i
Kyung-Joo Tark,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
NO, 98-
CIVIL TERM
Cheryle Lucke,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Certificate of Service
I, Richard C, Gaffney, hereby certify that on this 25" day
of November, 1998, I served a true and correct copy of the
Complaint via Certified and First Class United States mail,
Postage prepaid, as follows:
Cherlye Lucke
cIa Edwin A, Schwartz, Esquire
105 North Front Street
Suite 205
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Dated: ll-LS- Q<:l
By:
IL'Lv. ,'-Ul~,~~
Richard C, Gaffney, Esquire
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2525
PA Attorney IO NO 63313
.
Kyunq-Joo Tark,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO, 98-6713
CIVIL TERM
Cheryle Lucke,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's New Matter
The Plaintiff, Kyung-Joo Tark, by and through his attorneys,
The Law Offices of Richard C, Gaffney, files this Reply to the
Defendant's New Matter, the following of which is a statement,
27, No response is required, To the extent that a response
is required, Plaintiff specifically denies each and every
averment and response contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 of
Defendant's Answer.
28, Denied, The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R.C,P. ~l029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied, If it is later judicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 28
are specifically denied,
29, Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R,C,P. ~l029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied. If it is later judicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 29
are specifically denied,
30, Denied, The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa,R,C,p, Sl029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied, If it is later judicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 30
are specifically denied.
31, Denied, The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R.C,p, Sl029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied, If it is later judicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 31
are specifically denied.
32, Denied, The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R,C,p, Sl029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied. To the extent that the averments constitute
conclusions of fact, Plaintiff specifically denies that the
negligent act(s) andlor omission(s) of other individuals or
entities constituted an intervening or superceding cause of the
injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff, To the
contrary, Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely and proximately
by acts or omissions of the Defendant, Cheryl Lucke,
33. Denied, The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa,R,C.p. Sl029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied, To the extent that the averments constitute
conclusions of fact, Plaintiff specifically denies that his
injuries were caused by the act(s) and/or omission(s) of a person
or persons other than that of the Defendant Cheryl Lucke, To the
contrary, Plaintiff's injuries were caused solely and proximately
by acts or omi';sions of th!' [)(,fendant, Cheryl Lucke.
**34. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies entering into a
release wiLh other individuals or entities which has the effect
of discharging any liability on behalf of Defendant, Cheryl
Lucke.
35. Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclUsions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R.C.p. 51029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied. If it is later jUdicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 35
are specifically denied.
36. Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph and SUbparagraphs (a-g) constitute conclusions of law
for which no response is required pursuant to Pa.R.c.p. 51029 and
the same therefore are deemed to be denied. If it is later
jUdicially determined that a response is so required, the
averments contained in paragraph 36 are speCifically denied.
37. Denied. The averments contained in the correspOnding
paragraph constitute conclUsions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R.C.p. 51029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied. If it is later jUdicially determined that a
response is so required, the averments contained in paragraph 38
are specifically denied.
Street, Apartment One, Hanover, Pennsylvania, 17331. A true and
correct copy of the Certified Mail receipt signed by the
Defendant Cheryl Lucke is at tached as Exhibi t "A".
7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's COUnsel
failed to properly address the Notice of Appeal in his purpOrted
attempt to serve the same upon Defendant. To the contrary,
Plaintiff's Counsel properly addressed the envelopes and the
certified mail receipt containing the Notice of Appeal in his
attempt to serve the same upon Defendant. By way of further
answer, Plaintiff's Counsel forwarded copies of the Notice of
Appeal to Defendant Lucke by certified mail and first class mail
on November 5, 1998. On November 16, 1998, Defendant Cheryl
Lucke signed the certified return receipt. On November 18, 1998,
Plaintiff received the Certified receipt signed by the Defendant
Cheryl Lucke. To date the Notice of Appeal Sent via First Class
mail has not been returned and therefore it is presumed that
Defendant received the First Class Mail envelope. These facts
SUfficiently establish Defendant's actual receipt and notice of
the Notice Of Appeal.
8. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that the Notice
of Appeal was never received by the Defendant. To the contrary,
Defendant Cheryl Lucke did receive the Notice of Appeal on
November 16, 1998 as evinced by her signature on the certified
mail receipt. See Exhibi t "A"
9. Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required pursuant to Pa.R.C.p. ~1029 and the same therefore are
deemed to be denied. To the extent that the averments constitute
conclusions of fact, Plaintiff specifically denies that
Plaintiff's counsel has not effectuated proper service of the
Notice of Appeal as required by Pa.R.c.p.D.J. No. 100s(a). To
the contrary, Plaintiff's counsel has effectuated proper oervice
of the Notice of Appeal as required by Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 100Sla),
as the Notice of Appeal that was forwarded to Defendant was
properly addressed as is evinced by the signed certified mail
receipt. See Exhibit "A"
10. Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no response is
required and the same therefore are deemed to be denied. To the
extent that the averments constitute conclusions of fact,
Plaintiff specifically denies that Plaintiff has not effectuated
proper service of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure Governing Actions and
proceedings Before District Justices and, as such, the Notice of
Appeal is invalid. To the contrary, Plaintiff has effectuated
proper service of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions and
proceedings Before District Justices and, as such, the Notice of
Appeal is valid.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Kyung-Joo Tark, respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to enter an Order dismissing Count I of
Defendant's Preliminary objections, ordering Defendant Lucke to
pay Plaintiff's costs and attorneys fees generated in responding
to her preliminary objections, and granting further relief as
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
Count II
Motion To Strike for insufficient Specificity in Pleading
11. Plaintiff's responses contained in paragraphs 1 - 10
are incorporated herein by reference.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is deemed necessary.
17. Admitted. It is admitted that Plaintiff's Complaint
provides as set forth in this paragraph. By way of correction,
sub-paragraph "h" states:
h) failing to properly signal her intention
to execute a 1350 left hand turn;
,~
I
",
,
18. This paragraph constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is deemed necessary. To the extent that this
paragraph constitutes an assertion of fact, Plaintiff
specifically denies that Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint,
together with the allegations of negligence contained therein,
fails to provide the requisite specificity as required by the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Connor, Rupra. To the
contrary, the averments contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's
Complaint set forth clear and specific allegations of Defendant's
negligence. In addition, the allegations of paragraph 25 of
Plaintiff's Complaint, when viewed in conjunction with the other
allegations set forth in paragraphs 6 - 23 of Plaintiff's
il
Complaint, meet or exceeds the specifici ty required to provide
the Defendant with sufficient notice to present an accurate
defense. Those paragraphs specifically plead the following:
6. The facts and occurrences hereinafter stated
took place on August 1, 1998 at approximately 5:13 p.m.
at the intersection of State Route 2018 (Simpson Ferry
Road) and 16". Street in New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
7.
was the
bearing
At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant
owner and operator of a 1989 Plymouth Voyager
Pennsylvania registration #41959898305.
8. At the aforesaid date and time, the Plaintiff
was operating a 1989 Lincoln Continental and was
travelling in a westerly direction on State Route 2018
(Simpson Ferry Road) in New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
9. At the aforesaid date and time, the Defendant
was operating the aforesaid Plymouth Voyager and was
traveling in an easterly direction on State Route 2018
(Simpson Ferry Road) in New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
10. At the aforesaid date and time, Plaintiff
lawfully apgroached the intersection of State Route
2018 and 16" Street and observed a solid green light
permitting his lawful travel through the intersection.
11. The traffic signal at the intersection of
State Road 2018 and 16'" Street permits traffic
travelling in an easterly direction to lawfully make a
left turn onto 16'" Street when either a green arrow
pointing left is illuminated or, when a solid green
light is illuminated, after yielding to on-coming
traffic.
12. The traffic signal at the intersection of
State Road 2018 and 16~ Street is set such that
whenever a green left-turn arrow is illuminated to
permit left turns by easterly traffic, a solid red
light is illuminated to stop westbound traffic.
13. The traffic signal at the intersection of
State Road 2018 and 16'" Street is set such that
whenever there is a solid green light illuminated
permitting travel westbound, the green left-turn arrow
for eastbound traffic is not illuminated.
14. When Plaintiff approached the intersection of
State Road 2018 and 16'" Street on August 1, 1998, he
observed that the solid green light permitting
westbound traffic was illuminated.
15. When Defendant approached the intersection of
State Road 2018 and 16'" Street on August 1, 1998, the
green left-turn arrow was not illuminated.
16. There is a clearly visible, lawful sign at
the intersection facing westward to warn eastbound
traffic to yield to on-coming traffic. The sign reads:
"Left turn yields on green."
!
t.
I
17. As Plaintiff proceeded lawfully through the
intersection of State Route 2018 and 16''', the
Defendant, suddenly and without warning, made a 1350
left-hand turn directly in front of Plaintiff's
vehicle.
18. The Defendant failed to yield to on-coming
traffic.
19. The Defendant ignored the lawful sign to
yield to on-coming traffic.
20. The Defendant's sudden left turn in front cf
the Plaintiff's vehicle was hazardous, careless and
reckless.
'..
':
i3
"&
;"'i
,
21. The Defendant's failure to yield to on-coming
traffic was unlawful.
22. The Defendant did not properly signal her
left turn.
23. The Defendant's hazardous, careless, unlawful
and reckless operation of her vehicle caused a
collision between the Plaintiff's and Defendant's
vehicles.
These paragraphs provide a specific factual record of the events
of August 1, 1998. The allegations contained in paragraph 25
provide in specific detail allegations of Defendant's negligence
relating to the specific conduct described in paragraphs 6-23 of
Plaintiff's Complaint.
19. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the
extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph
constitute assertions of fact, Plaintiff admits that in part,
paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Plaintiff
.suffered injuries to what extent have yet to be determined."
However, Plaintiff specifically denies that Plaintiff's Complaint
also lacks sufficient specificity in its allegations of potential
injuries of the Plaintiff. At this time, Plaintiff is
investigating injuries that may have been sustained in the
accident. In the event, that such investigation leads to a
conclusion that Plaintiff's injuries are not the .'esult of the
collision, Plaintiff will at that time amend his Complaint and
withdraw the allegation of injuries.
20. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the
extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph
constitute assertions of fact, Plaintiff specifically denies that
Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint fails to provide the
required specificity as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure and Connor, with respect to any injuries alleged
to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. To the contrary,
Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint provides the required
specificity as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure and Connor, with respect to any injuries alleged to
have been sustained by the Plaintiff.
21. Denied. As explained above, the Plaintiff's Complaint
comports with Connor and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure with respect to specificity required in pleadings. A
fair reading of the Complaint will provide no Support for the
Defendant's position that she is "substantially prejudiced and is
unable to prepare an intelligent and knowledgeable defense to any
and all of the allegations set forth in Plaintiff I s Complaint."
To the contrary, any reasonably intelligent person in Defendant'D
position could prepare an answer to the Plaintiff's Allegationu.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Kyung-Joo Tark, respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to enter an Order dismissing Count II of
Defendant's Preliminary objections, ordering Defendant Lucke to
pay Plaintiff's costs and attorneys fees generated in responding
to her preliminary objections, and granting further relief aD
this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
The Law Offices of Richard C. Gaffney
.:.J~ cL .u&.~<:jJ:f':L<.u
Ri'chard C. GaffneY:Y-\
Supreme Court I.D. No. 63313
28 South pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2525
Attorney for Plaintiff
';; SENDER:
'tI _Complule J1elm I and/or 2'Ol' .,UIIOf\o)f MfYlClI'
.. _Complolo ItllffiS 3. 4.1, and 4b
., aPnnt your n..uno I'M ncfdfCU on lhoIlIvor,o of ,,~, t..,m W 'h..I1 .... lotn .."",n 11.'
~ L../<JloytJlcl
~ aAtlJch Ih,.. tmn 10 litO 110(\' 0111", 11....",..,..11. l>I' .10' "...I~l,~ ,I '\4"" l'I~"" '1(11
! porffill
CJ -Wnlo'nu/urn nOC&Pf nClqV05fOO'O'llhe m.J1lr-ece l>tolo.. "'" ar1o<:w "l.IIl'lt)(l'f
= . The A/Jlum Receipt ,"U Ihow 10 wtlOm ftlO ar1id. ....u (Je~Iftl'8<J And the d.tlu
C dollvered
o
."
~
U
ii
E
o
u
r
~,
3. Articlo Add(os~cd to:
Cherlyc lucke
408 Lor.ust Street.
HIIlJover. I'A 1733J
I also wi!>h 10 rocoivo Iho
folloWIng sorvicos (for nn
CX1r<lloc)
t. 0 Addrossoo's Addross
2. 0 nOSlrlctod Dolivory
Consul! poslmaslet tor 100.
4<1. Artldo Numbor
/'73/. 293 5/.2
!I
Apt.
~
4b. Scrvico Typo
o nugislorod
o Express Mail
o Return Aoccipt for MorchandJSII
7 Dalo O'11IZ(C; f
6. Add'osse~'s Addross (Only i/ rDquostod
nnd feD is paid)
is Conlfiod
o Insurod
o COD
,
,
5. nuccived Oy: (Pdnt N':Jfno)
~
~ 6. Slg'ml~J((:,: ,(A"ddreSSfJi} 0'" AgeL')
o X /./ ,- (
~ <_/I:-~' ( .' / "~t ..
PS Form 3811,1Jc 'ember 199.1
h ;;.1L
, "", ,."" u, Domestic Return Receipt
,
i'
I
"
if
UNITED SrArES PosrAL SERVICE
First.Class Mail
postage & Foes Paid
USPS
Permit No. G.1 0
. Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box ·
TIle Law Offices of Richard C. Gaffney
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(~~~..i~' ,
)
I
,
;
~,
c
1::.
1",111..0111""..11"11",11",1,1,..11",11,,\,11,,1,,,,111
i
l'
:1,"
;j
'"
.~
. - - -'f'" ~, . '. '", _ . ; . . , ',' "_ '.~.. , .
EXHIBIT A
.t
I'
II,
'.1
!f.",:"
~, r
'J
iI
"
ii
'I
J;
'I
r:
i '~
li.. .
,,'
i
I
'-~
I."
I
Kyung-Joo Tark,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
Cheryle Lucke,
NO. 98-", /t',
CIVIL TERM
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Certificate of Service
I, Richard C. Gaffney, hereby certify that on this 5'" day
of November, 1998, r served a Notice of Appeal via Certified and
First Class United States mail, Postage prepaid, as follows:
cherlye Lucke
408 Locust Street Apt. 1
Hanover, PA 17331
Hon. Charles A. Clement, Jr.
District Justice
1106 Carlisle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Dated: "('5 /1'K
By:
Ri J"'-\.~ Q., ~,,~ C.j1i3 J
Richard C. Gaffney, Esq.
28 South pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2525
PA Attorney rD NO 63313
..
V.
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON I'LEAS
CUl\tBERLANn COllNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
: ~ 98-6713
) No. 98-6278
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTIONS - LAW
KYUNG-.JOO TARK.
PlaintitT
CIIERYLE LUCKE,
Defendant
ORnER
AND NOW, this Oll....t day of Lr..CI~~ v 1999. upon consideration of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation of Action and after a review of the record, it is hereby
ORDERED that the actions in docket no. 98.6278 and docket no 98-6713 are hereby and shall
be consolidated into one action in docket no. 98-6278.
BY THE COURT
Isl teL. a.. ~
1.
:JeT 20 1911\\
'\'
,
.
7 Thc Prolhonolal)' assigncd ,I SCl'aralc dockclnumbcr 10 thc Complain!. Dockcl
No. ()8.671J Civil Tcrm
8. On Dccembcr 4, 19'18. Ihc Dclcndallllilcd Preliminary Objcctiuns in thc C,ISC.
filing thcmundcr Duckel No 1)8-6278
I) On Dccember 2J, 1998. lhc Plailllilllilcd a Rcsponsc 10 Dctendant's Preliminary
Objcetiuns inlhc ,'asc, filing thcmundcr Dockct No. 98-67 J J
10. On January 13. 1999, Ihe Dcfcndmll filc a Praecipe to withdraw Defcndant's
Preliminary Objeelions, filing ilunder Dockel No. 98-6278.
I I. On Janual)' 20, 1999, Ihe delcndanl liled an Answer wilh Ncw Maller. filing il
under Docket No. 98-6278
12. On February 8, 1999,lhe Plailllitrfilcd a Reply to Dcfendant's New Maller, tiling
it in Docket No. 98-6713
I J On Seplember 27, 199'1, Ihc Detendant filed a i'elilion for Appointment of
Arbilrators, tiling it in Dockcl No 98-6713
In further support Oflhis MOlion lor Consolidation of Actions, counsel for Ihe Plaintitr
respeelfully stales that:
14. Allorney Joseph Buckley, Esquire was appointed as Chainnan of the Board of
Arbilrators.
15. On OClober I J, 1999, Altorney Buckley held a telephone conference with counsel
for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendant. Altorney Buckley noted that the
case file in Docket No. 98-6278 was missing a copy of the Complaint.
16. On October 14, 1999, the Cumberland County Prothonotary located both docket
files and identified 10 counsel for the Plaintiff and to Attorney Buckley the
existence of these two files concerning the same matter.
17. The parties in Docket No. 98-6713 and Docket No. 98-6278 are identical.
18. The questions oflaw and queslions of fact in Docket No. 98-6713 and Docket No.
98-6278 are identical.
19. The transaction or occurrence which gave rise to this action are identical.
..
.
20 I'ennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule No 21.1(a) providcs that: "In actions
pending in a county which involve a common question oflaw or fact or which arise
Irom the same transaction or occurrence, the court on its own motion or on thc
motion of any pany may order a joint hearing or trial of any matter in issue in the
actions, may order the actions consolidated, and may make orders that avoid
unnecessary cost or delay."
21. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule No. I020(d)(I) provides that: "If a
transaction or occurrence gives rise to more than one cause of action against the
same person, including causes of action in the alternative. they shall be joined in
separate counts in the action against any such person."
22. Pursuant to Local Rule C.C.R.P. No. 206.2(a), counsel for the Plaintifrstates that,
to date, no judge has ruled on any issue in this, or any related, matter.
23. Pursuant to Local Rule C.C.R.P. No. 206-2(c), counsel for the Plaintift'sought
concurrence of opposing counsel, and opposing counsel does not oppose this
motion.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff moves this Honorable Coun to consolidate the actions in
Docket No. 98-6278 and Docket No. 98-6713 pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P.Rule No. 213 or, in the
alternative, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. Rule No. 1020(d)(I).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 10. Ill.......
r C. Gaffney, Esquire
PA I.D. No. 63313
P. O. Box 627
101 Front Street
Boiling Springs, P A 17007
Attorney for Plaintiff
,
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON I'LEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. I'ENNSYLVANIA
KYUNG-JOO TARK,
Plaintiff
V.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 98-6713
No. 98-6278
CHERYLE LUCKE,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTIONS - LAW
CERTIFlCA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby eenitY that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail,
First Class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Edwin A. Schwanz, Esquire
McKissock & Hoffman, P.C.
105 North Front Street
Suite 205
Harrisburg, P A 17] 0 I
Counsel for Defendant
James Buckley, Esquire
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, P A 17013
Chairman, Board of Arbitrators
~~
.~ .. off,,,, E"l';"
PA. J.D. No. 63313
P. O. Box 627
10 I Front Street
Boiling Springs, P A 17007-0627
Attorney for Plaintiff